Tracing the Tribe is a blog about Jewish genealogy - All the developments, tools and resources you'll need to peer more closely into your family tree. Created in 2006 at JTA's request, it is now independent.

29 August 2007

When I first learned about the caching of free genealogical material in a for-fee Ancestry database from Janice of Cow Hampshire, I searched the new Internet Biographical Collection.

Included were many JewishGen pages and InfoFiles, special interest groups hosted by JewishGen, family associations, Yizkor (memorial) book translations, photographs and more. The pages were clearly marked Copyright, All Rights Reserved, No Commercial Use Permitted and variants of notifications. One cached page even referred to the more than 100 other pages on that site, each with its own copyrights and permissions. Family site guestbooks were cached, with messages including rather personal information, including addresses, phone numbers and other data that people would not have posted if they knew it would be available this way.

As genea-bloggers posted comments, Ancestry made changes to the collection - it was available, not available, changed to a free database and then removed completely.

This is an ethical dilemma on Ancestry's part. I'm not commenting on the legalities or the technical side, better addressed by others (see links below).

Ancestry obviously did not anticipate the uproar concerning its initial decision to place free copyrighted online material on a for-fee subscription site.

Why not?

Did this plan - from conception to posting - make its way through multiple corporate levels without a single person in the chain of command commenting, "Wait a minute, this is copyrighted free online material and now we're going to do what with it?" or suggesting "Perhaps we should contact the copyright holders of these pages for permission to use their material in this way?"

Although the database has been removed - for the time being - Ancestry needs to ask itself: "Just because we can do something, should we do it?"

I believe we would not have been as upset if only the URL and a limited description of the link were included. We're certainly used to seeing links on Google or Yahoo, and we're delighted when the public finds our sites.

The problem was the caching of free pages and their clearly copyrighted contents on a for-fee subscription database - with no indication of whether Ancestry had asked for and received permission from the copyright holders for this commercial use.

...Many people have expressed concerns about the collection and the search engine we created on Ancestry.com. We recognize the significant time and resources members of the genealogical community invest to make their family history research available online.

Over the past few days we have reevaluated this collection’s goals, caching and crawling ability, and user experience. We have decided to remove this collection and search engine from Ancestry.com for the time being. We are still dedicated to providing family historians the online tools and aggregated records that make it easier to trace their family tree and will work to develop a solution that meets those needs in a way that will be most beneficial to our customers and the community.

Should the qualifier used - "for the time being" - make us nervous? Today the issue is moot, but what about tomorrow? The genealogy blogging community's far-ranging discussion is enlightening:

Good thoughts, Schelly. You have to wonder what The Generations Networkthinks about the concept of consultation with the genealogy community. Apparently not much. Even if legal (an issue I'll be exploring next week), Ancestry's actions represent a breach of trust with the rest of the community.

I hope you don't mind that I added your link an article on my blog about this issue.

I'm glad Ancestry.com has at least temporarily disabled the database. I hope they make it permanent.

I like you am amazed that the database moved through all the channels of design and approval without someone saying, "um wait, can we do this? um wait, SHOULD we do it? um wait, would anyone object?"

One of the responses I read this morning said that if one of us found data in Ancestry.com's free section, copied or cached it, and then offered it for sale (heck or even for free) their corporate attorneys would be on us like a tic on a dog. So what is the difference between this scenario and what they did? Nothing that I can discern.

About Me

Schelly Talalay Dardashti has tracked her family history through Belarus, Russia, Lithuania, Spain, Iran and elsewhere. A journalist, her articles on genealogy have been widely published. In addition to genealogy blogging (since 2006), she speaks at Jewish and general genealogy conferences, co-founded GenClass.com. Past president of the five-branched JFRA Israel, a Jewish genealogical association, she is a member of several professional organizations.

Tracing the Tribe: 2011's Best 40 Blogs - Heritage Category

Tracing the Tribe: 2010's Best 40 Gen Blogs: Heritage Category

Tracing the Tribe is #10

Tracing the Tribe "Best for Jewish Researchers"

RootsTech 2012 - Official Blogger

RootsTech 2011 Blogger

FGS 2011 - Official Blogger

Jamboree 2011 - Speaker/Blogger

Mirror Site

Tracing the Tribe's mirror site will not be updated as technical problems seem to have been resolved. Readers using Internet Explorer and still seeing error messages may wish to subscribe via email alerts or download Mozilla Firefox.

NOTICE TO SPLOGGERS

You may NOT use the contents of this site for commercial purposes without explicit permission from the author and blog owner. Commercial purposes includes blogs with ads and income generating features, and/or blogs or sites using feed content as a replacement for original content. Full content usage is not permitted. To ask for permission, write to ask AT tracingthetribe DOT com